4 ms·

- inferior bootloader - you need basicest of basic of a bringup then "call" linux kernel which does rest because it has to do it anyway with any bootloader - c

- inferior bootloader - you need basicest of basic of a bringup then "call" linux kernel which does rest because it has to do it anyway with any bootloader - check redhat nmbl video from devcon2024 - live editing- 1999 way - look, live iso installer (or something like hirensbootcd), you press F10, boot from usb stick, edit what you need to edit and voila. why bother with uefi shell when you can have webbrowser with google/documentation opened next to whole suite of tools downloadable on demand. even windows (pe) install is just in-ram "image flasher". 2020 way - https://github.com/JaGoLi/corevantage https://github.com/JaGoLi/corevantage can do it for coreboot on cutom flashed thinkpad. of course malware, proper implementation from motherboard vendor etc. i just remembered that gpu vendors provides you with "overclocking" utility so people already do simple config from os, intel xtu, techpowerup throttlestop... so if we can overclock safely i think setting boot settings should be trivial #should - limited flash - who writes "boot settings" to uefi? installer does, so installer can de-conflict or it can "just ask user". or "just" fifo copy move down. most of them are "live cd" with gui anyway. it can open arch documentation for you lol. also if youre REinstalling same os in same manner than do you need to change boot settings? no. boot parameters vs boot settings, i do not know how to properly call uefi boot settings, they are not boot parameters in my language. also you do not have 57 OSes installed at once and if you do you are using GUI solution for that. you can have 2 boot settings and change kernel parameters for one of them, where are kernel parameters saved ?(notnvram). where are boot parameters saved?(nvram) if you have totally erased every disk in computer, in intel cpu based apple computers, little utility will download and run os installer for you, i am not sure this still works, just saying wintel maybe can do this too if someone asked nicely, maybe? vendor url can be simple redirect to msdn?

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
## live editing The goal is to be able to remove the `quiet` option, or maybe set `init=/bin/sh`; requiring that I have a thumbdrive with a recovery system is more robust but is also needless difficulty when I can trivially do the same thing from grub/syslinux/whatever. And to clarify, I'm calling UEFI inferior because it doesn't (easily or universally) let me alter kernel arguments on the fly. Likewise, I would like to use coreboot but only a tiny fraction of machines support it. The stronger argument is to stick something like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40914761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40914761 in your EFI partition so you always have a recovery OS on hand, but that's still a lot more work than hitting a hotkey, editing arguments, and hitting one more key to boot. ## limited flash > who writes "boot settings" to uefi I am reasonably confident that every time I install kernel updates on Pop!_OS, it's running efibootmgr, and I don't think that's unusual. > if you have totally erased every disk in computer, in intel cpu based apple computers, little utility will download and run os installer for you, i am not sure this still works, just saying wintel maybe can do this too if someone asked nicely, maybe? vendor url can be simple redirect to msdn? Like with coreboot, I'm happy to agree that it would be better if every machine had such a feature, but I also have to point out that... they don't. If you want to argue that vendors should all switch to shipping coreboot with an OS download feature added, then I will completely support you. If you want to argue that Linux distros shouldn't support the majority of machines which lack those features, then I strongly disagree.
- Calwestjobs 2y ago
  if you can boot, you change what you need to change in running os. efibootmgr works when os is online too, so just do same thing, be online when you are changing parameters.i remember in good old days of first android devices, there were million posts about which cpu scheduler is best to speed my android device. only real answer was remove all schedulers from kernel source code. (FIFO). it provided 30% boost ... not one article said that. less code is running (no matter how optimized), faster systems are. less code to maintain, cheaper software is, less bugs, attack surface there is. i am arguing that booting direct by uefi is simpler and faster for everybody because it is ONE standardized way to do it. FOSS is about extracting money by providing "support". but this "support" is immoral when you pay them to fasten your boot, because they intentionally doing boot wrong/slow/nonsensical. customized BSD system can boot in 50ms, so you can spawn working vm fast, do we need that kind of customization of boot ? no i would like for distributions to give me 2 sec to kde login screen like i already have it in clear linux. this is not advert for clear linux or kde. it is example that current mainstream state of thing is i.....c. or clear linux again, you press reboot in KDE and kernel does kexec reboot, so i do not need to wait for hw to initialize for 3 minutes because im restarting for reasons not involving hw... . IT JUST MAKES SENSE currently, linux is nonsensical ball of lint flying from one side to another because Linux Tech Tips brooded children cried nonsense to developers on Xtwitter, i am fed up with that. i do not advocate for coreboot in any shape or form, i was just providing examples that IT IS doable for last 15 years but very few noticed. another example - lenovo ThinkLMI - Lenovo BIOS Setup using Linux WMI.

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago

## live editing The goal is to be able to remove the `quiet` option, or maybe set `init=/bin/sh`; requiring that I have a thumbdrive with a recovery system is more robust but is also needless difficulty when I can trivially do the same thing from grub/syslinux/whatever. And to clarify, I'm calling UEFI inferior because it doesn't (easily or universally) let me alter kernel arguments on the fly. Likewise, I would like to use coreboot but only a tiny fraction of machines support it. The stronger argument is to stick something like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40914761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40914761 in your EFI partition so you always have a recovery OS on hand, but that's still a lot more work than hitting a hotkey, editing arguments, and hitting one more key to boot. ## limited flash > who writes "boot settings" to uefi I am reasonably confident that every time I install kernel updates on Pop!_OS, it's running efibootmgr, and I don't think that's unusual. > if you have totally erased every disk in computer, in intel cpu based apple computers, little utility will download and run os installer for you, i am not sure this still works, just saying wintel maybe can do this too if someone asked nicely, maybe? vendor url can be simple redirect to msdn? Like with coreboot, I'm happy to agree that it would be better if every machine had such a feature, but I also have to point out that... they don't. If you want to argue that vendors should all switch to shipping coreboot with an OS download feature added, then I will completely support you. If you want to argue that Linux distros shouldn't support the majority of machines which lack those features, then I strongly disagree.

Calwestjobs 2y ago
if you can boot, you change what you need to change in running os. efibootmgr works when os is online too, so just do same thing, be online when you are changing parameters.i remember in good old days of first android devices, there were million posts about which cpu scheduler is best to speed my android device. only real answer was remove all schedulers from kernel source code. (FIFO). it provided 30% boost ... not one article said that. less code is running (no matter how optimized), faster systems are. less code to maintain, cheaper software is, less bugs, attack surface there is. i am arguing that booting direct by uefi is simpler and faster for everybody because it is ONE standardized way to do it. FOSS is about extracting money by providing "support". but this "support" is immoral when you pay them to fasten your boot, because they intentionally doing boot wrong/slow/nonsensical. customized BSD system can boot in 50ms, so you can spawn working vm fast, do we need that kind of customization of boot ? no i would like for distributions to give me 2 sec to kde login screen like i already have it in clear linux. this is not advert for clear linux or kde. it is example that current mainstream state of thing is i.....c. or clear linux again, you press reboot in KDE and kernel does kexec reboot, so i do not need to wait for hw to initialize for 3 minutes because im restarting for reasons not involving hw... . IT JUST MAKES SENSE currently, linux is nonsensical ball of lint flying from one side to another because Linux Tech Tips brooded children cried nonsense to developers on Xtwitter, i am fed up with that. i do not advocate for coreboot in any shape or form, i was just providing examples that IT IS doable for last 15 years but very few noticed. another example - lenovo ThinkLMI - Lenovo BIOS Setup using Linux WMI.